First there was the ruling on care for autistic children over the age of six being called discriminatory (and of course the Liberals are appealing) and now this one also called discriminatory. Can you think of any other pieces of legislation that may end up in a court shortly where the Attorney General may hear the word discriminatory used? I guess they will have to get used to hearing that term.

"It cannot be said as a matter of logic and common sense that employees whose employment has been frustrated are not likely to work again," said Justice Russell Juriansz, who wrote the decision on behalf of a panel that included Justices Stephen Goudge and Susan Lang.
The position of the hospital and government reflects "a stereotypical presumption about the adaptability, industry and commitment to the workforce of persons with disabilities severe and enduring enough to frustrate their employment," the court said.
"The generalization can only have the effect of perpetuating and even promoting the view that disabled individuals are less worthy of recognition and value as human beings and as members of Canadian society."
Lawyer Elizabeth McIntyre represents the Ontario Nurses' Association, which challenged the legislation on Tilley's behalf.
She called the ruling a milestone in protecting the employment rights of disabled workers.

Lawyer Elizabeth McIntyre represents the Ontario Nurses' Association, which challenged the legislation on Tilley's behalf. "I find it quite shocking, actually, that the attorney general would argue that it's not likely a disabled person would return to the workforce and should just be written off," she said